Last I heard, the project didn't get the $25 million bond from the state. If the state can't show support for the line, it looks to the FTA that the local support is not in place, jeopardizing the federal funds.

I heard something about another round of grants or bonds are something, and the Met Council is seeking $10 million in those.

^Yeah, I think there's about $50 million in "slush funds" that was not dedicated to any one project, but instead set aside so all the projects that did not receive State funding could fight for the last piece of the pie. Anyone needing a substantial piece of this is going to be out of luck, IMO....$10M may be the upper limit for one entity, I think.

We need a new mentality in this country. We need to get away from the past 4 years and actually work to get things done. The business community is behind this 100% Can't see how we can't get this done!

Wedgeguy wrote:We need a new mentality in this country. We need to get away from the past 4 years and actually work to get things done. The business community is behind this 100% Can't see how we can't get this done!

The past 4 years have been the most "pro-rail" years this country has seen in generations....what did you mean "get away from the past 4 years"?

maybe he's referring to conditons locally. urban rail transit is being built and/or expanded in a cross section of cities not tradtionally seen as centers of progressive urban planning. charlotte, dallas, phoenix to name a few. cincinnati will have a starter streetcar line in place in a couple years. yet our state legislature denies the southwest bonding money this past session based on the same, tired arguments of years ago. some are state reps who actually represent areas who will benefit most from the southwest lrt.

the hiawatha line is booming with ridership. people prefer it to the bus. so to will central line. the rank and file citizens like light rail transit and want to see it expanded to where they live. unfortunately some reps elected to our state legislature view rail transit as some sort of communist plot.

Aside from the Vikings Stadium thread, these public transportation threads seem to be the most divisive. Anyone want to take a stab at why spending of public dollars in this way drives people's passions so, and tends to divide us?

We all drive by trillions worth of collective public investment everyday, what is it about certain public spending sends us to our respective fighting corners?

I don't know who else saw this article, but it totally makes cents. People hate the idea of investing in rail because it 'costs' SO much, but what they don't realize is how much we actually spend on our roads, because it just seems second nature. This is a good read I think.

Le Sueur, I think that's a great question. I'll attempt to answer it, although I could see this question taking on its own separate thread. So, why is the issue of transit so divisive?

1. People automatically assume that subsidies are bad no matter what. Again, this is the default starting point. Rarely will people admit that driving is highly subsidized by federal grants, property taxes, bonds, or money from a general fund. Even walking is subsidized! Sidewalks don’t pay for themselves, yet walking is the cheapest form of transportation by far.

2. On the most basic level: all cities must have streets, but not all cities must have transit. Streets must exist (unless we're talking about Venice, however canals still serve the same function) to move people from point A to point B, whether we talk about Byzantium in 200BC or Minneapolis in 2012 AD. All we have done since the Industrial Age is to widen our streets to accommodate motorized transportation.

3. Streets exist to move goods: trucks deliver goods to stores, police, fire, and paramedics use streets to come to the aid of citizens. Playing off the first point, we must have streets to fulfill basic functions of society, so that police, fire, and paramedics can do their job.

4. Transit is marketed as a tool that can be used to: decrease congestion, increase mobility, or jumpstart development. This portrays it as an “add-on,” rather than an essential service. When it is marketed as a congestion-fighting tool, it usually fails by this metric. For instance, the Northstar Line didn’t decrease the number of cars driving on Hwy 10 by 25% and thereby speed up traffic. When anti-transit people found out that Northstar didn’t meet its ridership projections, it gave them more ammo to fight with.

5. Since motoring became popular in the 1930s, and universally-accepted in the US since the 1950s, people’s default assumption is to travel by car. When this is not possible, they borrow a car, rent a car, get a ride from a friend/family member, or take a taxi. However, rarely will they consider transit.

6. The “us” vs “them” mentality: There is an assumption that those who take transit do so out of need rather than desire – they would rather drive if they could. Plus, transit riders are portrayed as being: smelly, non-white, loud, abrasive, and generally unpleasant to be around. With all the anti-welfare type rhetoric going around, its easy to say: “they’re just using the system.”

7. In most cities, most of our decision makers are motorists. Drivers tend to think of driving as a function of getting from point A to point B. However transit serves points: A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Many riders don't just go from point A to point G, they go from point C to point F, or some other permutation. When talking about the Central Corridor I noticed people frequently think that its “just an expensive way to move people from one downtown to another.” However, it can do that, AND move people from the University to downtown Mpls, AND from the Midway District to Frogtown, AND from the Raymond Station to the Lexington Station, etc…

Any updates on this LRT line? Also does anybody have a link to that one study that projected all the numbers for each proposed corridor? I can't remember if this was the highest traffic segment or if the Blue extension would have been more heavily used.

It mostly just says that the Met Council finally submitted their funding request to DEED. The filing deadline had been extended by two weeks (until July 9th), and the date for awards is also expected to be pushed back by two weeks or more from the original early August timeframe.